[flagged]
As executive workers, they have a legal obligation to execute the law irrespective of what is decreed. Even then, they have their own - private - moral principles. The Nuremberg trials were clear: following orders is not a defense.
I'm not sure it's fair to place the burden of constitutional interpretation on every federal employee. Understanding the constitution is complex, and frankly in many places open to a lot of interpretation.
And of course if unions want to join the fray, they're welcome to.
I will however note this. Your argument gives every federal employee freedom to do anything they like. This is true for left wing and right wing alike.
The problem with the "following orders is not a defense" logic is that it implies the person had choices (feds do, they can quit, guards didnt). Equally it implies that future-winners can retro-determine what you "should have done". It judges your present actions based on some future standard. Which means you need to decide which standard you think will ultimately win.
Clearly every person has their own limit. Lots of people quit their jobs every day. And clearly that is everyone's option.
At some fundamental level though, when you enter public service, you serve at the pleasure of the public. Right now it's hard to argue that this isn't the will of the public.
You may not like it, I certainly don't, but the permissions we tell ourself now are the same permissions that apply 4, 8, 12 years from now.
Which leads to the question- are you happy if a racist working under a Dem president uses your exact argument? And if not, why not?
Trump didn't run on project 2025 precisely because he knew it wasn't the will of the public.
My personal view is that much evil in the world occurs because people who make decisions and those that do them are not the same set. That any one, or any small group, can inflict so much unnecessary suffering seems surely to be a sign of pathology in the structure of our civilization. The fix, in my view, is to reassert direct personal responsibility, and to deny the legitimacy of looking to systems of rules to launder responsibility.
If I was a fed right now I'd probably already have been arrested for breaking people's legs. There are way more feds than there are people telling them what to do.
No they don't? They a take an oath to the constitution. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
The president is temporary. The constitution endures.
To fall back on the "oath to the constitution" to determine your path seems difficult. As an employee it seems like those above my pay grade pretty much interpret the constitution for me.
The President is supposed to execute the laws faithfully. It's Congress' job to set policy. Not that it matters because we hav the Republican Party setting policy instead.
The Roman Empire had a similar demise as emperors relinquished power to nobles who also didn't want the responsibility.
Government is work and no one wants to do it. Anyone agreeing to take on the responsibility that Congress didn't want has a reason for doing it. It's likely not for the reason that they desperately want to act for the good of the people.
I'm not a political scholar, and certainly congress writes laws, but I would expect the party leader to have the most say in policy.
Certainly that's how it has been done since I can remember (reagan) and it's how the electorate sees the post.
Most campaigns run on policy, even Trumps. People vote for him because "I like his policies".
Trump has an outsized presence and influence upon the Republican Party, both as President and as an ordinary American citizen, but this is rather unusual and not the norm.
JFK, Reagan, Clinton, Bush even Obama certainly "lead" their party, in practice if not in title.
No, that's ridiculous. Not every person who voted for Trump wants the crazy. Many of them (edit: many of his swing voters) just want better pay and cheaper consumer goods and thought Trump was more likely to deliver than Harris. And they hoped his crazy talk during the campaign would remain mostly talk like in his first term.
The population does not support this. People are surprised.
Crazy is literally his brand. Voters can choose to rationalize this if they like, but voting and hoping doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.
>> just want better pay and cheaper consumer goods and thought Trump was more likely to deliver than Harris.
Given that he ran on setting tarrifs its hard to see that bringing prices down. But hey, maybe they will.
Trump is the most transparent politician ever. There's no guile here. That's apparently his appeal. He says whatever he likes, will grift at every opportunity, commits crimes in plain sight, is a convicted felon, is completely transactional and holds a grudge.
Make no mistake- people voted for this. They may not -want- it, but there's no deception here. How can people possibly be surprised?
But then the whole federal work force becomes politicized. I mean, if I stand up for what's right, then I can't complain when a right-wing worker does the same when say Obama is in power.
If a racist was to follow your logic (allowing each individual to determine their "rightness") and they start applying rules on racist principles, is that OK?
I don't think a CDC employee should break the law, equally I don't think CDC employees should be lawyers interpreting the law.
So the point stands. If you're asking employees to rebel against their employers, yet stay within the law, then I guess they need to lawyer up, and hope that (ultimately) Supreme Court judges agree with them.
And anyway, who doesn't know that discrimination is illegal at work in 2025? Maybe a handful of recent immigrants from a tiny fraction of terrible countries?
There is no law requiring you to stand up for others at work. But in cases of discrimination, personally, I do. Because the law is on my side, and my employees need me to.
Your point might stand, but your example about discrimination doesn't make your point.
Our government doesn't run top to bottom, that is how fascism/dictatorships work. Our executive branch executes laws/policy, Trump oversees that, not dictates. Trump does not give federal employees orders. He can only give orders to the military. We also don't go for the 'I was just following what I was told' excuse. In fact, we've executed a whole nations leadership for using that excuse in how they governed.